... I would not care if I see one penny in economic gain out of the legislation and even accept a potential for economic loss ...
YOU more than ANYONE have argued against ANY other proposal simply on the basis of net economic gains and nothing else.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
You are the one hung up on the economics as the critical factor of choice in a tax system. I am only interested in the essentials of ridding our system of the income tax sytem ...
Yes, I am hung up on the economics of the FairTax; they stink to high heaven. YOU more that ANYONE vociferously defend the economics of the FairTax; YOU more than ANYONE have a vast repository of ready-made clips to defend most every economic concern of the FairTax.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
My descisions have been made on factors beyond the economic having to do nothing at all with marketing of AFT or anyone else for the matter, so I don't give one hang as to what one economist says over another or your concern over whether or not economic studies and marketing rhetoric mean anything at all.
The fact that you don't care about the lies and distortions of the marketing of the FairTax lumps you in with a group of untrustworthy scoundrels. YOU seem to give more "hang" than ANYONE else about what economists say ... that's almost all you ever talk about!
Your actions belie your sentiments.
What matters to me, does the bill meet the technical standard of revenue neutrality set in place by Congress.[... not whether it actually raises enough revenue ...]
Well, well, well. I think in all the crap, we've found a nugget. Looks like ancient_geezer knew all along that the FairTax wasn't truly revenue neutral, but defended it anyway lest the FairTax lose some of its polish. For a guy who NOW admits that "technical" revenue neutrality not ACTUAL revenue neutrality is sufficient, YOU spent more time than ANYONE else defending the ACTUAL revenue neutrality of the FairTax.
Your actions belie your sentiments. (But thanks for the admission.)
Bottomline a revenue neutral tax change makes no difference whatsoever to the purchasing power
Let's see, a moment ago you said:
I don't give one hang as to what one economist says over another ...Now you're "hanging" again ... even referencing an economist.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
You want to work out what you see as workable changes, that fine by me, I'm all ears. I have heard none of that from you ...
I was beginning to think you didn't have ears. You NEVER listen to ANY suggestions. I (and others) have offered SEVERAL changes, beginning with an HONEST portrayal of the FairTax: and HONEST appraisal of wage/price behavior; and HONEST appraisal of the real tax rate; an HONEST appraisal of who gains and who loses; an HONEST appraisal of the impact on the size of government; an HONEST appraisal of the political fallout. BUT NOOOOOOOO. You stubbornly reject ANY suggestions.
Many of us have suggested other alternatives: flat consumption taxes on income, for instance. But YOU always reject them OUT OF HAND as "not economically good enough."
Your actions belie your sentiments.
Since there are no points of debate going on here ...
Three or four posts ago, we were deep in the discussion of the tax rate and it's revenue neutrality ... but I guess that was with the OTHER ancient_geezer ... the one who, for YEARS now seemed to care deeply about the technicalities of the FairTax. Then you (or he) slipped off into "power-to-the-people-land." Just look back a couple of posts; you'll find plenty of points to debate.
Now you're just being superficial.
In the final analys your opinion on superficial factors of marketing and packaging mean nothing to me.
Then why do you argue so passionately to defend the marketing and packaging? Oh, and don't forget, most of my (our) objections to the marketing and packaging are rooted in the technicalities of "the bill."
Your actions belie your sentiments.
For me, what I have seen ... is sufficient to do the job I expect. And that is all I need.
Well, now that you've admitted that you don't expect much, it's more clear why you'd accept the FairTax. What still puzzles me though, is why a guy who claims to care so little for the technicalities spends SOOOOOOO much time defending them.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
In the end, it appears that my characterization of you is correct: you ARE willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You now claim you don't care if the technical implementation of the FairTax actually does harm to the economy, you're only interested in enacting a sales tax (and apparently, any sales tax will do.)
That's all you need??? Then, sir, your are a fool.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
Oh, and go find the other ancient_geezer. He was more interesting.
It's nice to see your REAL agenda come out because, for YEARS now, your actions have belied your sentiments.
... I would not care if I see one penny in economic gain out of the legislation and even accept a potential for economic loss ...
YOU more than ANYONE have argued against ANY other proposal simply on the basis of net economic gains and nothing else.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
My support FOR the implmentation of an NRST has always been rooted in other than an economic basis.
You and your cohorts have chosen economic arguments, which obviously are refutable in economic terms. You bring to the table an economic argument, rebuttal of your economic argument is due.
Yes, I am hung up on the economics of the FairTax; they stink to high heaven. YOU more that ANYONE vociferously defend the economics of the FairTax; YOU more than ANYONE have a vast repository of ready-made clips to defend most every economic concern of the FairTax.
LOL, those clips that refute your personal opinion of the economics of the Fair Tax exist wholly as a result of your and your buddies's inordinate focus on economic concerns. None of the rebuttals to your flawed arguments would be in my files, except for your and your cohorts insistence on economic criteria, and an economic argument be the one and only basis for exception or rejection of the FairTax legislation.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
My actions are wholly consistent with the terms of debate you folks have insisted on. You want to argue economic factors? Surpise, surprise the rebuttal you get back is in the economic terms you insist on.
My actions in rebuttal are consistent with terms you have set for your misrepresentations and errors.
My repeated exclaimations of the the non-economic reasons for repealing and are evident throughout my posting history, as that is the fundumental basis to my support of an NRST replacement to the income/payroll tax system we live under today.
I do not recalu you have ever chosen to comment or respond to those concerns.
The fact that you don't care about the lies and distortions of the marketing of the FairTax lumps you in with a group of untrustworthy scoundrels.
Marketing is not the basis of my support, for an NRST. My support for an NRST in lieu of an income/payroll tax system long predates the FairTax or any of the contempory proposals for other forms of NRST of recent years.
My support of this particular legislation is based on the language of the bill itself, not on the basis of what you would like people to perceive as lies and distortions of unworthy scoundrels.
Frankly I find any errors and distortions in the marketing presentation much less offensive than those of the opposition that are out right and flagrant attempts at propaganda. Such as is used by Gale, et.al. of Brookings from which most baseline oppositional arguments appears to derive from, including your own whether you recognize it or not.
YOU seem to give more "hang" than ANYONE else about what economists say ... that's almost all you ever talk about!
LOL, that is what you have chosen to discuss. You are surprised rebuttal of an economic argument you insist on is economic?
Well, well, well. I think in all the crap, we've found a nugget. Looks like ancient_geezer knew all along that the FairTax wasn't truly revenue neutral, but defended it anyway lest the FairTax lose some of its polish. For a guy who NOW admits that "technical" revenue neutrality not ACTUAL revenue neutrality is sufficient, YOU spent more time than ANYONE else defending the ACTUAL revenue neutrality of the FairTax.
Here you entirely fail in your understanding, I have always maintained the FairTax rate in the legislation was too high, not too low. In fact my bitch with the bill, is it does not infact incorporate the tax cuts of the current adminstraion.
A factor that I hit the FairTax people and Congress Critters repeatedly with in my communications with them. I lobby them to correct that error before it gets out of markup and reduce the rate to the 19-20% level it should be at.
I prefer to see a permanent tax cut in the end, not continuation of what exists. It is you folks that demand that there be no cuts in revenue going into a new tax system with your demands that it be "revenue neutral". Are you now telling me it the bill should not be revenue neutral and should incorporate at least the Bush adminstration tax cuts making them permanent?
For, the technical revenue neutrality requirement of the old PAYGO rules under which the legislation was written mandates that the specified rate meets CBO scoring, a condition that a static analysis show the a bill will meet or exceed the revenue generated by current law.
I find it interesting you have chosen such a transparent way of spinning the debate. You are showing your colors loud and clear.
Let's see, a moment ago you said:
I don't give one hang as to what one economist says over another ...
Now you're "hanging" again ... even referencing an economist.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
Once again, you want to argue economic, expect a refutation of your arguments in the terms they are framed, and exposure of the fallacy inherent it the argument you put out.
You don't address apples by discussing the color of oranges or how fast a gazelle can run. You answer the terms of the question posed not some other unrelated factor.
It is your positions that are rooted in economic terms, you receive an appropriate rebuttal to your the silly position you have locked yourself into. It is indeed interesting to watch how you try to desparately to spin your self out of an intenable stand by throwing smoke in the air.
Three or four posts ago, we were deep in the discussion of the tax rate and it's revenue neutrality .
Meeting terms of your talking points, which by the way are not related to the basis of my support of the FairTax NRST.
You want to talk about revenue neutrality, that is what we talk about. And yes I do show the FairTax legislation was originally written to meet the technical revenue neutrality requirements of the PAYGO act at the time it was authored.
That again is your worry that you want to argue about, not where my fundamental support of the legislation comes from.
I debate the arguments you have proffered, for you have never expessed nor indicated you have any other position of debate over the FairTax legislation other than economic. Y
ou maintain the FairTax is not revenue neutral, I show where economists, to whom such criteria are the constraints of their models, disagree with you.
In fact you are always suggesting that you support an NRST in principle, you just don't like the "marketing".
Well show us a bill in Congress garnering support that is close to what you want. Others have been introduce in the past such as the Tauzin version of an NRST replacing only income taxes and not payroll taxes. I never saw your support in that bill which was available in the last session of Congress. I have supported many versions of NRST, because they have been significant steps in the direction I want to see this country take.
No I rather suspect that your professions of liking an NRST but not just the particular one currently before Congress because of your peceptions of marketing efforts on its behalf, is full of bull and a smoke screen. You know, like in, "I have been a long time Republican, but ...."
the final analysis your opinion on superficial factors of marketing and packaging mean nothing to me.
Then why do you argue so passionately to defend the marketing and packaging?
Ohhh I understand now, any information that is in favor of the FairTax legislation no matter how appropriate and accurate, is all marketing and packaging in your eyes to be used as a club against supporting the legislation.
If any one presents a positive to advertise and garner support for legislation it is automatically, "Marketing and Packaging" that should cause one to reject even when the information happens to be supportable and factual.
Love your warped thinking on that one. You really should consider professional help with that problem.
Oh, and don't forget, most of my (our) objections to the marketing and packaging are rooted in the technicalities of "the bill."
You can always lobby to change the bill, or "gasp!!" author and write a version of your own NRST that you do like, to be introduced into Congress.
I haven't seen you begin to suggest that either be done. Rather your bitch is with Marketing and Packaging. You know the cosmetics of presenting the legislation to the public as a whole to gather support to enact it.
No what I see in you and your cohorts is a perpetual smoke screen, thowing anything on the wall to see what sticks.
In the end, it appears that my characterization of you is correct: you ARE willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You now claim you don't care if the technical implementation of the FairTax actually does harm to the economy, you're only interested in enacting a sales tax (and apparently, any sales tax will do.)
I have said I don't care if it were to me a personal reduction in my wealth or disposable income, I am interested in assuring the more important factors involving the Liberties and Freedoms of my children and their children. In reality don't anticipate such a loss, and the clear evidence indicates that there is benefit to the economy in going from an income/payroll tax to a national retail sales tax. That is all too the good.
That however is not my overreaching standard. Liberty and Freedom is. Even the liberty and freedom to fail to achieve.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin.
MIgawd, Dimp-Dimp, you're funny ... and getting even funnier as you age. Your "actions certainly don't belie YOUR words" as you are always attacking either the FairTax or its sup[porters. Never any alternative - just attack, attack, attack.
You hate the FairTax (having said so more than once) and will try absolutely any untruth or mispreresentation to try to make either it - or its supporters - look bad. Or perhaps you'd like to now represent otherwise?
You still seem to think that others don't realize this. They do, but aren't interesting in engaging you since you are both crude and ignorant. You continuetd talk about HONEST representations by you and your tail-enders rings hollow indeed. There is nothing honest about most of the attacks you have collectively laumnched - and they've freqquently been accompanied by self-serving disclaimers just like the one you give here.
You twerps hold yourselves out as the be-all and end-all of economic analysis and I don't know how to break it to you ... but you're not AT ALL. You just present biased, crackpot notions that you loudly proclaim as true when in fact the FairTax website has much more solid economic realism that all of you put together will ever be able to assemble in several of your lifetimes. You are a bunch of pretentious phonies.